Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Garman, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis concurred in the
judgment and opinion.

Justice Freeman specially concurred, with opinion.

A group of Chicago taxi drivers complained of the manner in which they were receiving traffic
tickets and filed this class action in 2000. The lead plaintiff is Gazi Mashal. Cook County circuit
judge Richard Siebel certified them as a class in 2002 and, in 2005, issued a partial summary
judgment to the effect that a ticket should be issued to a driver at the scene or placed on the vehicle
and that to substitute for this a mailed notice (or “fly-by ticket”) would be contrary to both statute
and ordinance. The City, as defendant, had argued that such occurrences were either rare or had
happened only if the driver was confrontational or fled. Judge Siebel did not address these factual
issues in making his legal ruling.

In 2007, the City sought to decertify the class. By this time, Judge Siebel had retired and had
been replaced by Judge Stuart Palmer, who granted the City’s motion to decertify in 2008,
concluding that commonality no longer existed, that the City was entitled to a trial for each and every
ticket for a determination of the facts of each case, and that the class action approach was no longer
appropriate.

Plaintiff Mashal challenged this ruling, setting in motion the series of maneuvers which brought
this appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. He contended that Judge Siebel’s initial ruling that “fly-by”
tickets were illegal was a “decision on the merits,” which, pursuant to statute, would preclude
decertification of the class.

Four questions concerning the “decision on the merits” issue were certified to the appellate court,
whose judgment was affirmed by the supreme court in this decision. The first question asked what
was a decision on the merits which would preclude decertification. In affirming the appellate court,
the supreme court said that there must be a complete determination of liability on a claim based on
the facts disclosed by the evidence and which establishes a right to recover in at least one class
member, but which is something short of a final judgment.

The other three questions asked whether there would be a lack of authority to decertify in each
of three specific situations, and the appellate court answered each question negatively. Its judgment
was affirmed as to all of these rulings. The supreme court said that liability which would establish
a right to recovery had not yet been determined in this case. The original trial judge did not decide
whether the City violated the law by issuing a “fly-by” citation to Mashal or any other driver. Such
a determination would have been a decision on the merits, but it did not happen here.

The supreme court declined Mashal’s request to direct the appellate court to consider the
propriety of the decertification order at this stage. The cause was remanded to the circuit court for
further proceedings.